About this Show

Charlie Rose

News/Business. (2013) (CC) (Stereo)

NETWORK
PBS

DURATION
01:00:00

RATING

SCANNED IN
San Francisco, CA, USA

SOURCE
Comcast Cable

TUNER
Channel 74 (525 MHz)

VIDEO CODEC
mpeg2video

AUDIO CODEC
ac3

PIXEL WIDTH
1920

PIXEL HEIGHT
1080

TOPIC FREQUENCY

Lance Armstrong 22, China 17, U.s. 16, Us 8, Washington 6, India 6, Lance 5, Romney 5, Daniel 5, United States 5, Europe 5, America 4, Israel 4, Obama 4, South Africa 4, Egypt 3, Russia 3, Brazil 3, France 3, Charlie 3,
Borrow a DVD
of this show
  PBS    Charlie Rose    News/Business.   
   (2013)  (CC) (Stereo)  

    January 16, 2013
    12:00 - 1:00pm PST  

12:00pm
doping, what helps a guy simply, you know, get back on the bike to ride another day versus what gives him a genuine competitive advantage, what substances are truly performance enhancing and which are just on the list. >> rose: we conclude this evening with the ian bremmer of to eurasia group opened list of 13 risks they see for 2013. >> the risks around iran is not we are going to blow them up, the risk is there is a shadow war going on, here remember the date with romney and obama, romney said that because of obama, the iranians are four years closer to nuclear weapons that is hogwash. >> think of what we have done to the iranian regime, to slow them down, not just the sanctions but the shadow war and cyber attacks, clea clearly we are slg them and that matters and also has the potential for the iron jabs to do something back. >> rose: the lance armstrong story with coyle, macur and david epstein and sally jenkins. >> plus ian bremmer on the international risks for 2013
12:01pm
when we continue. >> funding for charlie rose was provided by the following. mye-e captioning sponsored by rose communications from our studios in new york city, this is charlie rose.
12:02pm
>> rose: lance armstrong by any measure was widely known as the king of cycling but the career of this seven-time tour de france winner has been marred in controversy, last year the u.s. anti-doping agency accused him of running the most sophisticated doping program in history, armstrong denied the allegations for over a decade, he admitted to using performance-enhancing drugs in an interview recorded with oprah winfrey on monday, oprah spoke to me today on cbs this morning about the interview. >> i would rather people make their own decisions about whether he was contrite or not, i felt he was thoughtful, i thought he was serious, i thought that he certainly had prepared himself for this moment. i would say that he met the moment, and at the end of it, two and a half literally two and a half hours, we both were
12:03pm
pretty exhausted, and i would say i was satisfied. >> in terms of my career, i think it is certainly the biggest interview i have ever done in terms of its exposure. i think back in 1993, of course i did michael jackson live around the world, this is going to be live streamed around the world as well as on owned, if you can't find that on your station go to oprah.com and we have a channel finder there for people who are still trying to find it, but because it is going to be around the world and we believe that it should be around the world because so many people who don't have access to the own channel wanted to hear what he had to say, and i think the number of people who have exposure to it makes it the biggest interview i have ever done. >> rose: joining me from cleveland is daniel coyle, the secret race, the hidden world of tour de france from washington, juliet macur, a sports reporter
12:04pm
for "the new york times", and here in new york, david epstein, se a senior writer of sports illustrated, i am pleased to have all of them here on this program this evening. >> i just start with you, david, because you are here and go around. how big of a story is this? >> it is huge. lance has always been huge, so look at cycling, how many people really, cyclic, cycling when does it get on national headline programs, it doesn't, it did with lance armstrong and after lance armstrong it didn't and it is again because lance armstrong is in the news again. it is a massive story and i think his story had as many sort of components to it of what people look to sports for as any story that has ever been told in sports. >> rose: daniel. >> it is a greek myth, we have seen his rise and now we are compelled by his fall because it is driven by the same quality, that willingness to do anything to win in cycling that took him to some dark places and seeing exactly as we wrote in our book
12:05pm
the secret race we are seeing exactly what that place looked like and what it is made of and the decisions he made,. >> rose: the answer to the question, why would he dope in the first place is simply the competition and the need to win? >> it has to do with the way he is built, this is what makes lance, lance he so easy the word in a very binary way, he looks out at a landscape if something will help him and if it won't, he won't do it, so that same strategy, that same mindset which made him succeed in this immensely corrupt world is what we are seeing now in the oprah confession, he is seeing what he needs to do and doing it but the problem he faces is that you can't win a confession, a confession has to be lived, it has to be felt, it connects to other people and that is an area, emotion and feeling and connection where he has had more challenges in his life. >> rose: juliet? what is the most interesting thing about this? >> the most interesting thing is definitely it is the most
12:06pm
dramatic and precipitous fall of an athlete really worldwide in the history of sports. people have fallen down before but not as quickly or as really breathtakingly as lance has done over the last couple of months, i have covered sports a long time and never seen anything like it. >> rose: so what would you add to what daniel said about him, this sort of the need to win and the willingness to do anything to win? >> well, the reason why he is coming forward right now is still that need to win, he is trying to compete in triathlons again, he has been banned from olympic sports for life, which means he can't obviously pete in the olympics but he also can't compete in the new york city marathon, and any triathlon, even in the easter bunny 10-k in his hometown, all of those events are, they follow the world anti-doping code which are the rules that have banned him from sports so if he comes forward now and gives information about his doping and other people who have helped him
12:07pm
done to the u.s. anti-doping agency it could possibly mitigate the lifetime ban and could be out there competing again. >> rose: do you expect him to implicate other people that might not have been implicated so far? >> oh, yes, i do, we had a story in "the new york times" today that said that he was willing and had planned to come out and give information about people in the international cycling union, with situate the world governing body of the sport, i am not sure what exactly kind of information he had about those people, it is the president of the international cycling union, his name is pat mcquaid and heimer brugan who is also an honorary member of the international olympic committee, he is going to come out and give some information about them, amount their involvement in possibly doping, doping him, to the anti-doping agency and it could really bring down the sport. >> rose: how did he get away with it for so long, david? >> there are multiple aspects to
12:08pm
that, one is sort of the practical aspect is that the reputation of anti-doping testing, what is done in the lab far, far exceeds its capabilities, so there was this idea, anti-doping, the drug testing, not the legal investigation but what is done in the lab has this reputation among people that, okay, they are passing tests, you don't have to worry about it now we can say it is clean if you pass the test that's fine and lance really used that, never failed a test i am the most tested athlete in history and i think people who sort of follow the science of sport realized that is anything but the case but this is a system with a massive, massive number of false negatives and very few false positives and if you are really trying hard and have a lot of resources then you shouldn't fail the test. me and a colleague lena roberts reported last year he also had people in the anti-doping labs helping him figure out how to skip by those tests you should never fail if you have that kind
12:09pm
of test. >> i mean, when you look at what he has done, what is is the reaction of his friends, those people closest to him? >> anybody talk to them? >> well, it is an interesting place, because knows are the people that get forgotten, especially the x friends, i know he reached out to half a dozen people who were harmed the most, this is not a story about lying, as the story about protecting the lie by viciously attacking other people who can't fight back, attacking with lawyers and powers and all means necessary that lance attacks but reached out over the last few days, i think a couple of conversations have happened, maybe two of the sticks people he talked to but the rest of them are not ready to talk, this is going to be a long process, it is not something you can flip a switch, say a few words and make it better. this is a longer journey. >> rose: and what does he say when he talks to them? >> i don't know. i don't know exactly what he says when he talks to them but i
12:10pm
think what is happening he is being straightforward and trying to be as honest as he can be and i think the question is whether they -- >> rose: why would you assume that now?. because that is his style, he approaches things from a very simple way, he would say, look i messed up, i am a bad guy, i don't like looking at who i was back then and i want to make this right, he is straightforward and very complex individual but he approaches things, his approach is always very simple, and so that is the kind of simple approach he would take and from what i understand it has been met with incredulity in some cases and also with people who are willing to say let's start the conversation. because they -- you know, they want to move forward, i think people ultimately see this as painful and sad and tragic as it is ultimately it is a good thing for sport and a good thing to have the truth come out. >> rose: one of the things i heard is that his attitude about all of this is that i am willing to acknowledge the doping, and i confessed i did all of that but all this thug i are that is suggested did not happen and that is what he is most offended
12:11pm
by. >> i could speak to that a little bit, you know, having done the book with tyler hamilton who was approached in a restaurant and asked by lance, physically detained and threatened, lance told him to his face he would make his life a living hell and tear him from limb to him and that doesn't leave much to the imagination, as these facts come out the american public has to look at this, you know what a good actor this guy is and i think they will watch the oprah winfrey to seive mask slips even a fraction, the bar is high. >> i was talking last night to mike anderson a former bike mechanic who believes he found some drugs in an apartment of lance and asked to clean out and then sort of summarily fired, he was sort of sneered in the local papers, he was defamed, he was sued, he is now in knew sell land because he couldn't get a biking job in the u.s. anymore and when i was reporting about lance from lance's team i got a thick packet that had the name -- i can't remember the exact name but something like, why
12:12pm
mike anderson is like a bad guy and bad employee, you know, and for a gay like that, those kind of tactics ruined him, just ruined him. >> rose: it ruined mike. >> it ruined mike and had a packet ready to send us, mike is a bad guy packet. >> rose: yeah. what is the risk for him now? i mean does he face criminal prosecution? does he face civil charges, are people going to sue him because he lied about where they had an investment or where they had a commitment or where they are they were harmed in some way? juliet? >> well, the biggest problem he is facing is this federal whistle-blower lawsuit filed here in washington in 2010 by one of his former teammates, floyd landis, landis said he used, well armstrong and some of his associates used taxpayer dollars to fund the drug program on the u.s. postal service team, so right now, the government is
12:13pm
deciding whether to. >> the court:. > a plaintiff and hearing they should do, make that decision as early as this week, and right now lance is sort of trying to beat them to the punch by offering not only his testimony against the team owner and some other people on the team but offering millions of dollars, to give millions of dollars back to pay the, repay the u.s. postal service on some of the response sorry ship money on the teams so he is trying to make anticipateds on that and that's the most serious thing he faces right now. >> rose: someone else told me the hardest thing he had to do is tell his children. >> no kidding. i mean, i was just talking to my mom about this the other day, and for those of white house are parents, you know, you might be flawed, but in the eyes of your children, you are perfect, at least for a certain amount of time before they grow up and realize that is not true so i really can't imagine what lance had to face, he has five children, when he sat them down, if he sat them down yet, and
12:14pm
said, you know, daddy is not perfect, and for me that is the heartbreaking part of this is that this is not just a story about a guy who hide to the american public and to millions of people around the world, who saw him as an inspiration for their fight against cancer, this is a guy who is perhaps lied to his children, and i am not sure how that will affect them for the rest of their lives but i really feel for them. >> rose: was he complicit with other people? i mean, who might be implicated in what he did because they joined him in it? >> the people who were above him in the sport that might be people at usa cycling who run the sport in the u.s., that might be people at the international cycling union who run the sport worldwide, pat mcquaid has been the president for several years and really the biggest guy out there is i'm her br. rugan from 1991 to 2005 he was the president and very powerful in sports, in the sporting world around the world, not only was he an iooc member
12:15pm
but continues to be an honorary ioc member and he has very much, very many powerful connections in the sport, sports world, including the ioc president, jacques road, i am hearing they are quite tight. >> rose: they all have something to lose if they knew or if they were trying to protect some larger interests, rather than truth, right? >> exactly right, and as another few more people too, the old father figures from lance's, from lance's early career, tom weisel who bank rolled the first team who is now possibly involved in the whistle-blower suit, and armstrong is in discussions to give information to federal investigators about tom weisel's role. >> rose: was there ever a moment that this could have a different result? once he started down this road, it is one of those stories where, you know, he just had to go deeper and deeper and deeper, people say when you get in trouble, stopping digging. >> you are right, it is
12:16pm
interesting how much it parallels the story we tell on the secret race, tyler hamilton did a similar journey, once you lie and go dark, once you go into that world and start using it and have success and start winning race there is is almost no going back, where lance was different, though was that he kept pushing it, when he was attacked he didn't just deny he attacked back, he kept going, he always, floyd landis says lance always double down, when he is in trouble he doubles the bet and the oprah interview is in some ways the ultimate doubling of the bet, he pushes everything on the table and said, look, there is where i am going to try to do to get out of this. >> rose: so what are you looking for? each of you in the oprah interview? >> well, you know, i don't -- i was asking myself that same question and i really don't know what to say, like he will confess. >> rose: right. >> i don't, having done some reporting on lance armstrong i would fool myself i could interpret the thoughts of a
12:17pm
goldfish before i think i know what lance armstrong is thinking so judging his contrition is not an issue to me, strategically this looks like 15 years of deny, deny nye until there was about penny left from deneigh and let's see what we can get from confessing so i think a lot of people will try to interpret his emotions and mannerisms and to me, i am in a place where i understand i can't even begin to do that, beyond his confession -- >> rose: what are you looking for, daniel? >> i am looking for what he says to the people he hurt, i mean for what he says to them, this isn't about lance, in a bigger way, this story, i know we are focused on him but much bigger than him, this is about a culture and about abusing power and what will he say to them? will he talk in terms of this is right and wrong? or is he going to say, i just want to get back to -- >> i mean as part of that, you know, an interesting question, i hope oprah asked is, now he is
12:18pm
going to say implicitly, i tried to ruin people who i knew at the time were telling the truth, i tried to ruin their lives or run them out of town and on dan's point i think it will be interesting if she picks up on that. >> rose: i mean for me, my own question here, it is more that aspect of it, someone doubling down, however you want to characterize it, the retribution, the beyond the failure to come clean on doping and beyond the idea of expanding naked today and asking -- and to be where he was and all of the shakespearean drama of that, you know, it is the -- what extreme someone will go to avoid discovery, and how malicious that can be. juliet, what do you think? >> well i have gotten many e-mails and phone calls over the last couple of days and people keep asking me if there will be tears if lance will cry and what
12:19pm
i think about that and i have no idea, like i said before, he is very much a chameleon, not only has he been prepared for this interview with oprah by maybe a dozen advisors, but he can set his personality to what the situation calls for, so will we be able to say he cried or on his knees or he seemed really honest? you know, i don't know what is in the heart of lance armstrong and not sure we will see it on thursday with oprah either. >> rose: what damage has this done to cycling? >> >> if it has destroyed the sport, frankly, you know, the port is really, really suffering and has suffered immensely over the last, i would say, well, 15 years even more, i mean, it has been over 100 years of doping and cycling and it really has come to a crescendo with this huge figure in the sport falling down so hard, what will be the defining moment, at least what the u.s. anti-doping agency
12:20pm
hopes is lance armstrong takes down the people in the sport that have either turned a blind eye to doping or facilitate eded it for all of these years, we see if that happens. >> rose: what performance of cycling doped? >> well depends what area you are talking about, it has gotten cleaner in recent years called the biological passport but back then you would have to go probably deep into the top 50 you know, to get to somebody who was not on something, i know tyler hamilton on our book describes just presuming everybody pretty much everybody was on something, he figures 80 to 90 percent. >> rose: 80 to 90 percent? >> that's right. >> rose: and how good was lance armstrong without doping? not good he did the race four times and actually out in that we know he started doping in the mid pain nineties it is hard tol how much was natural, and that's the problem with doping, it dissorts the, distorts the playing field, se not the kind of athlete that would win the tour, he was the wrong size, he had the wrong strength, but doping distorts it and you are
12:21pm
creating sort of a frankenstein athlete and armstrong was the best at that process and the best at the wild west, but in terms of would he have won the tour ever as a clean athlete? the answer is almost certainly no. >> rose: do you agree with that, david? >> i agree with that. >> rose: he never would have won? >> it is hard to know for sure but i agree with what dan said he doesn't pit the typical mold of that kind of athlete and something dan has done some reporting on, i believe there are reasons to believe that he would have gotten more benefit from certain drugs than the next guy in some case ms. terms of how his particular blood is. >> rose: when did each of you begin to say to yourself, he is doping? >> maybe you couldn't prove it, but had been thinking about it and somehow there was a straw that broke the camel's back as to his guilt? juliet? >> the first time i turned on the tour of france and saw he won. >> rose: really? >> that was the first ink cling.
12:22pm
>> rose: that he was doping. >> .. >> rose: what made that true? >> what made it true? >> yes. >> i had a feeling all these years like everybody else did and couldn't prove it but in 2006 i interviewed one of his former teammates who admitted to me he used epo in the runup to the 1999 tour and his wife has said it was all for lance, everybody did all of this doping for lance and with frankie, and betsy, his wife, just the way they spoke about lance with the fear that they had about him and the doubt they had that he would do any of these picture rack louse things without drugs really hammered it into me that lance must have been using something, in the only was he using something, but he was using intimidation and manipulation and lies and cheating and all of those things to make himself into one of the most famous athletes in history. >> rose: daniel? >> well, i lived to report lance armstrong's war, i moved to the
12:23pm
town of in northern spain his training base and when you are in that atmosphere, you sense what juliet is talking about in the oxygen, people behaved strangely and, you know, this as a reporter, you can tell when something is up, and the way people acted around him they used to call him batman on the team he would come and go at strange times, meeting the doctor and knowing what is going on, with each additional fact you get this picture, but it is hult unprovable until the u.s. anti-doping agency special agent jeff no vits ski and federal criminal investigation that gets people talking and so finally we get the real picture, that it is an amazing world, you know, in james bond world where they are sneaking around and doing blood bags, laying down on the bus during the tour, it is too much to be believed but just underneath the surface all along and until they started talking we could not see that. >> rose: it is stunning to me in a sense everybody knows you are living a lie. >> that's right.
12:24pm
that's right. but when you get inside that lie you convince yourself it is for good and in a corrupt society, you don't trust anyone so you are constantly convinced what you are doing is less than what the other guys are doing the psychology of cheating is complicated but essentially it comes down to you feel noble, you feel good for cheating because you know that other cheater was going to win and you are a good guy, especially if you are guy who contributes to good causes and maybe started a foundation. >> rose: so at some point -- go ahead, juliet, sorry. >> i was just going to say, you know, the problem about this whole story is that the whole story was just too good and too much of a fairy tell and too many people, including most of the media members bought into it when he won the 1999 tour, it was obvious to some people that this could not possibly happen, not only did he just come back from cancer but he hadn't done that well in tours past, and suddenly he is winning the tour with such ease it seemed unbelievable, well when it seemed unbelievable it actually
12:25pm
was unbelievable and only a handful of journalists were writing about it conceptcally back then, the rest of the people were he familiar in order with this great come back story of a guy who beat cancer and really the whole world became enamored with the story and amazing to me that people even to this day are amazed he doped when it was so obvious in the cycling circles that he has doped for, you know, since day one, everybody knew it but just couldn't prove it. >> rose: but were they writing that or were they afraid to write that because they couldn't prove it and therefore, you know, -- >> they couldn't write it because he would intimidate journalists to the point where if you wrote anything negative about you he would call you to chastise you on the phone or blackball you and wouldn't give you any interview and if you are the cycling writer from a small publication or even a big newspaper and lance armstrong the biggest story in the history of cycling for americans won't talk to you then you pretty much have to compromise yourself and
12:26pm
not write the negative and a lot of people didn't, although david wall whosh is irish journalist who worked for the sunday times of london was the early skeptic and wrote conceptcally about him from the beginning and really suffered greatly because of it, and in the end, he was right. >> also add to that all three of us here have done reporting on doping in sports and the bar is really high, so the difference between knowing something as a person and being logical and reasonable and being able to print it when you are going probably to be sued, is a high one, i get this question all the time, you might really -- i am sure all three of us know other athletes we know athletes who are doping but haven't quite met that bar to really publish it so when you end up in court you can defend it. >> so you said cycling is dead, so what happens to lance armstrong? david, start with you. >> well, i think he -- i think for some people they will see this as a starting of a certain kind of rehabilitation, probably people who haven't been
12:27pm
following it close enough to sort of followed the stories of the people he hurt along the way, i think his hope is that he will have his ban reduced and sounds like he is expressing a willingness to testify against other people and if he brings information that is new, he can't just admit to what u.s. anti-doping agency knows if he brings new information that leads to other sanctions, you know, maybe the world anti-doping agency code only allows for at the moment a lifetime banned to be reduced to eight years so maybe triathlons when he is 50, i guess. >> rose: daniel, what happens to lance armstrong? >> i think this interview he lift as negative response and i think the public is angry and wants more than lance is capable of giving them, i think he is unfamiliar, uncharted territory here, i don't know, i think he goes into therapy, i think he tried to struggle and find a way forward, but i don't see a clear way forward, either to reducing he ban to eight years, that is not really a way forward or in rebuilding the kind of identity he had, i mean in is wrapped up in his identity assort of a
12:28pm
super hero and i think he is going to find it very difficult to sort of return to what is his normal life, his new normal. >> rose: juliet. >> i think he will do whatever he can to reduce that lifetime ban to eight years because even competing in triathlons when he is 50 is something that he will look forward to and live for. as for whether people forgive him or not i am not sure that will happen, you will have to watch oprah and decide but also two groups of people, beyond that group, the one group of people who will hate him and feel like they are betrayed because he looked them in the eye and lied for so many years and there is that group of people who really don't care he doped. he might have given them inspiration to get through their fight with cancer or he might have given their family members inspiration to get through their fight with cancer so those people i think will always love lance armstrong no matter how deceitful he might have been on the bike, the rest of the people will have to make their decision
12:29pm
after seeing oprah on thursday. >> rose: thank you all, it has been most informative for me, thank you very much. >> thank you, charlie. >> you're welcome. >> rose: we will be right back, stay with us. >> rose: we continue our conversation about lance armstrong with sally jenkins, joins me from washington, he is a sports reporter for the washington post, and also coauthored two books with armstrong amount his life and career, she is a long time friend and defended lance armstrong i am pleased to have her back on this program, especially at this moment, sally, now that you know, what does it change for you? >> well, i mean, i think i knew the moment i read george cathy's affidavit which i accepted as completely truthful and so did the other writer affidavits i don't think you could have read the writer after davidson you saw the report and not have come to the conclusion, yeah, he did it, so, you know, the confession is important because it is lance finally telling people like me,
12:30pm
you know, what -- i have been hearing all of this stuff from other people and expressed to him that what has disappointed me most is to hear it from others and not from him, so, you know, i belong in the category of friend and associate and i think that he has been doing a lot of apologizing to people like that in the last couple of days, and, you know, for better or worse this is his moment to sort of let people hear it from him, rather than read it in a report or hear it in a broadcast. >> rose: did he apologize to you? >> he did. he did. >> rose: what did he say? >> he said he was sorry for misleading me. he said he -- he was sorry, you know -- and this is a very small thing, you know, but he expressed he was sorry that my reputation had taken a hit because of my association with him, which i appreciated, and, you know, it wasn't a very long conversation, but it was a meaningful one to me, i hoped he was clean, he is not.
12:31pm
and am i angry about that? i don't rise to the level of anger that i think a lot of people want me to, i think that there is a level of anger at lance that is i think out of proportion to the offense of doping. >> rose: why do you say that? you know, well, because, you know, let's face it he is a bicyclist, i mean, i don't condone doping, i don't condone breaking the rules, what i have said to him and what i have written is i forgive him, i don't condone it but i forgive him. i think that doping is so endemic in cycling, apparently, that it was the price of competing in that era. you know, do i agree with it and like it? no, i don't have the heart to be full of rage at him, i just don't, you know, people are going to have to accept that i don't feel that for him. i feel disappointment, but he is my friend. >> rose: here is what you said. i like lance armstrong, have always liked him, not a fair ray tail for instance but the real guy, the scars, combative hombre
12:32pm
that swung his fist at another writer, anti-religious nonbeliever, the man who tried to whip cancer fair and square and did more good with his name and fortune than any athlete i have ever met. that still stands, i assume. >> i believe all of that, you know. the guy i know did a lot of good in the cancer world, industry always said, i don't know if he is clean but i know that he beat cancer fair and square, you know, the cancer fighter was the guy that i liked, very much and respected and enjoyed working with. you know, and that part of him is still intact, you know, for better or worse, you know, our greatest cancer fighter happens to be a guy who also took some chances with his health and that's an interesting fact. >> rose: but there is also this aspect of disbim indication and threats. >> right. >> rose: that people have stepped forward to say, that is many people, believable.
12:33pm
>> i think that is what he is going to have to address with oprah, i think it certainly is equal to the doping. and i think that -- >> rose: or worse. >> to be honest tab -- well, yeah, quite honestly i thought that was the most damaging stuff in, you saw the report, i think those are the toughest questions for him, you know, lance armstrong i know and that i have dealt with have never been threatening, he certainly is complicated, he certainly is flawed, he has certainly angry at times and combative, he never has been menacing, now that is my personal experience with him and i am a friend. i would not want to meet him as an adversary, i can say that. you know, i think that he has got some work to do to persuade people that lance armstrong, the threatening, the intimidating lance armstrong that has been portrayed, he has got some work to do to convince people that is a miss portrayal. >> rose: i asked the three of them pro we seeded you would he have won doping and they said
12:34pm
no. >> i think if you look at his results as a marathoner and as a triathlon at 40 years old you see the size of the skin and the size of the competitive desire, you know, to still be the competing in endurance sports at 41 years old, the size of the engine, that gives you a bit of a clue into who he was on the bicycle, you know. i happen to believe he would have won the tour de frances anyway, i think i am an out liar on the topic of doping and sports, so what you are going to get from me is probably not the prevailing attitude towards it. you know, i think it is a terrible, terrible moral dilemma and a complicated question i think we have done a poor job of defining what doping is, what is therapy, versus what is doping, what helps a guy simply, you know, get back on a bike to ride another day versus what guess him a genuine competitive advantage, what substances are truly performance enhancing and which are just on the list. we have things floating on and off lists i am not comfortable with, i don't have a moral
12:35pm
certitude that a lot of people do on the anti-doping question, i think that it is a matter of personal conscience to go to what you just said, i think we are doing a bad job of persuading athletes that it is not the best option, i don't think we are talking to them honestly about it and i don't think we are listening to them honestly about it, so i have a lot of complicated feelings about this quite apart from lance armstrong and i always have, you know, i felt the same way about marion jones and really think marion jones was the fastest woman in the world, i don't think there was a serious miscarriage of justice in her gold medals. you know, i find it really, really disturbing that she seems to have served more time in jail than the manufacturers and distributors of the steroids. i think we are on the wrong track and i think that is quite apart from lance. >> rose: thanks very much, thanks for have having your time here, thanks for taking your time from a busy day. >> sure. >> rose: back in a moment, stay with us. >> rose: ian bremmer is here, he is the president and founder
12:36pm
of eurasia group his firm released a group on the top ten political risks for 2013 and predicts this year's flash points from china internet freedom to mining strikes in south africa, i am pleased to have him back on this program, welcome. >> thank you. >> rose: here it is, how long have you been doing this. >> about ten years. >> rose: ten years so just tell me what it is in general, how do you go about making the decisions that you do about the risks. >> it started ten years ago with me, i was writing one of my regular pieces as i do and you get it and others would, it sadly has become a bit more of a production, 150 folks this days and we get together month in advance and all of the analysts covering the various parts of the world and various themes and sectors all put out where they think we should be focused and we battle it out and ultimately it is not from my computer, qualitative but -- >> rose: just because you have been here a number of times, so
12:37pm
eurasia group is what? >> we are the world's largest group political risk consultants, we look at how politics affect the markets, you know, if you a political scientist you get a ph.d., historically you become either a policy guy or an academic, and it was really no road from going and being a political scientist to going to the private sector and my conceit back in '98 when i started the firm was the idea that actually politics matters to the markets and it seems like an obvious thing to say today but in '98 apparently it wasn't so obvious. >> rose: let's give the top risks for the year ahead, 200013. >> let's look at where -- you get so -- especially today when people are reading the news that they like, when there is so much that is polemic and partisan out there and when the headlines blair at you, one day it is gun control and the next day the fiscal cliff, the importance especially around the beginning of the year, taking a little time and looking at the bigger picture. i think it is something that
12:38pm
people appreciate more and more in today's world. >> rose: let's start with number one. emerging markets or formerly emerging markets. >> you know the fun my thing, if you think about 2013, it is kind of the first post financial crisis year, we have had four years where all of the risks that people have been concerned about, involved advanced industrial democracy, will we have a double dip recession, are we going to have the debt armageddon crisis or physical cliff, is euro going to explode, so many covers of the euro bursting into flames. >> is japan going to get washington, d.c. into the sea or will this incredible debt burden just crush them? and the fact is that for the last four years, all of those risks, every single one has been overstated, overstated by people in the marketplace. emerging markets are actually
12:39pm
much more unstable than that and yet. >> they are thought unstable. >> they are responsible to for two-third of the world's growth, about three quarters by the end of the decade, and yet these are countries that are much more volume tile, volatile and much more opaque. >> rose: let's talk about who they include, china, india, brazil, and turkey and -- >> some of them are doing reasonably well, some include the bricks but three of the bricks bricks are facing head wind greater than we have seen in the united states, not brazil, which is developing increasingly becoming more regularized but in the china and russia, and i go back to the beginning. >> rose: the risk is what is going to happen to them? >> the risks are different for different countries but in many of these emerging markets, they are actually facing significant internal political head wind and lacked the political will to continue with economic reform and they will be punished by the markets, in some cases they are not emerging at all, but
12:40pm
submerging and backsliding, russia is certainly a case of that where you look at everything about the russian investment climate and look at the brain drain they are experiencing and the capital flight they are experiencing. >> rose: and look at the demographics. >> look at the demographics, they are improving a little but not enough and you see a country that by no means should be a bric and should not be an emerging market, one quick point, bk when the u.s. was having its election you had so many corporates that were saying we will keep trillions of dollars on the side lines because we have such great uncertainty about where the united states is going with the election. that uncertainty is many, many magnitudes lower than in the emerging markets. >> rose: china versus information, the idea with increasing information has the possibility of destabilizing klein? >> yeah, china actually is a growth story and a pretty strong growth story in 2013, but china is also -- >> rose: stabilized in 2012. >> because it stabilized in 2012 because they have a surplus but china is working very past to
12:41pm
become an information economy without being an information society. they want to be a 21st century economy with a 20th century political system and we saw that right after we put the report out you suddenly had these demonstration i assure you we had no part in against censorship in china and one of the first major decisions made was the new president was to get out there and say the chinese communist party will not tolerate unorthodox situate in the press or in the media .. >> but i mean that is the fear it would undermine the power of the communist party. >> that's right. >> that was always the fear. >> and i think in an environment where you have hundreds of millions of chinese on twitter, that increasingly are learning their government officials are worth billions of dollars. >> rose: basically you are saying their fear is legitimate. >> i think their fear is legitimate, i don't think the country is going to fall apart. >> rose: but very strong protest movement that has legs could provide a challenge over
12:42pm
-- >> that's right. and they are so unwilling to risk that, they are so unwilling to tolerate even a little that they are likely to do two things, first, it will truly slow them on economic reform that is necessary and on any political reform to make a very conservative and cautious and they need to speed up and respond to these people and makes it much more likely the chinese will engage in nationalism, because if you are going to get mad at something in china you are going to have this information you can't stop the chinese from -- >> rose: raise the nationalism flag. >> yes and that is really -- >> rose: write is the reason in places in europe you have a certain national link, nationalistic, people from the fringes are gaining political currency. >> in greece and spain especially we see a lot of that .. >> rose: number three is the arab summer. >> yes. >> what is the story. >> not the spring and never liked the wirment, it is actually we started with the spring, people talked about the winter, the idea of the arab winter you had that the dictators were actually going to consolidate and now you have
12:43pm
people criticizing the arab winter concept and saying people really want the arab winter and want to see consolidation, were that true, we are not seeing consolidation of dictatorships in the arab world but seeing more sectarianism and more political radicalism and that is particularly true in an environment where the international community wants to have a very lightfoot print, not just the u.s. but everywhere out, 60,000 in syria now, conflict is metastasizing across the borders all over the place and that is not the idea that leaders in the arab world are able to subvert democracy and take over, it is the idea they have to respond increasingly to the very populism and in many cases will fail. >> rose: and where do you weigh the rise in islamic government? >> well, you know, egypt,. >> rose: what is happening in libya so far, egypt -- do you know what is going to happen, the extension of it?
12:44pm
>> no idea, you have no idea and people that believe assad is on his last legs or the regime, they are hopeful but there is no reason to make that prediction right now. >> rose: you think he will stay in power? >> i hope he doesn't but i wouldn't make a large bet he is still not near at the end of 2013 i wouldn't bet a lot of money on that, he still has allies. >> rose: you are assuming nobody comes in from the outside. >> i think people are coming from the outside but they are doing it in small amounts when the united states says if you attack with chemical weapons that is our red line, i mean if you are assad and not hearing well i guess as i attack with everything else it is okay. >> rose: that's true. what about where the -- >> you go back to the presidential foreign policy debate with romney and bringing up molly and everybody said what is he talking about, that is one thing, give him credit when you can, it is another place where islamic radicals are making a lot of hey,. >> rose: i mean even to the point people think it may be a failed state where -- which open
12:45pm
arms to al qaeda and any other associated group. >> indeed and the french government said today that they will stay until they stabilize the situation, period, end of story, ,000 es a pretty strong statement when all largely by themselves. >> rose: there is no evidence yet that america is prepared to do that or nato is prepared to do that or anybody else is prepared to do that. >> there is absolutely zero evidence of that. >> rose: i thought so. number four is washington post politics, we know that what that means but it is only number four. and a lot of folks act like it is number one, but it is not number one. >> rose: how serious is it? >> we are not at the brink of recession, and. >> rose: the point is, dysfunction produces no results you might be at a recession. >> we don't think so. >> rose: you don't? in other words you think if things continue there will be -- and inability to raise the debt ceiling, 35 is an inability to do anything in terms of the parties agreeing, both republican and democratic party
12:46pm
agreeing on some future course that still there will be an american economy that is growing and is healthy? >> it won't be growing as fast, but if you think about america in the context of europe and japan the willingness of internationals to continue to provide lots of lending support for the u.s. dollar and treasuries remains very high. >> rose: why is that? why do they continue to do that? obviously they believe it is a stable place to be. >> we will be the world's largest energy producer and largest producer of calories, producer of calories, of food, the technology development, overwhelmingly based in the u.s. our demographics are pretty good, housing is picking up, we have a lot of money, this doesn't speak well for unemployment in the u.s. and doesn't speak well well for a lot of people doing the way they used to our their kids but in terms of looking at the united states, our risk wasn't called the u.s., the risk was called washington politics, the problem is it is precisely that relative comfort that allows washington to shrink into the miasma it
12:47pm
continues to. >> rose: japan is the jibs. >> the jibs. >> it is kind of interesting, right after i say the united states is doing well, we have a situation with america's key allies in the three most important regions of the world to us are actually under a lot of stress. >> rose: really? >> and there are really three things happening in world that matter right now geo politically, one is china is rising, one is middle east is exploding and the third is europe is muddling through, and those three things are really bald for our three most important three strategic allies, china rising is really a problem for japan. they have stressed a lot of monemoney and yet the relationsp is becoming very toxic and loving losing a lot as a consequence, america is ally and fighting against china and cyber fight and nationalism going on in the own government, we talked about the middle east already, cheer will i you look at what is happening with egypt's relation
12:48pm
with israel and jordan's relation with israel and turkey's relation with israel and you see populism and the willing tons pray play that is problematic for israel's perspective. >> rose: risk six is europe muddling through. >> muddling through and a much lower risk in europe than last year. >> rose: gdp growth less than one, two percent. >> yes but not falling apart. >> rose: okay. and euro stone remains euro zone remains stable? >> absolutely .. >> rose: east asia politics, what is that. >> east asia politics. >> rose: is that indonesia? >> basically it is the entire -- you think about the pivot, one of the most important policies we put in place the last few years is largely because across the asian continent, you have countries that are increasingly integrating economically towards a very strong china, but they maintain much stronger political and security relations with the united states. >> rose: which countries are we talkable about? >> we are talking a.
12:49pm
>> talking about japan but also talking about vietnam, korea, thailand, even myanmar. >> rose: even burma. >> even burma, yes, absolutely, you look at why are they opening up? they are opening up because they are worried about only being in the pocket of a rising china. >> rose: and all worried about that. >> india less so because. >> rose: because it thinks it is strong enough? >> it thinks it is strong enough but everyone else is. >> rose: number 8 is iran. >> rose: you thought it might be two or three? >> people would think that. >> rose: why is it so low? >> because i think the likelihood of actual military strikes against the iranians is marginal. >> rose:. >> i was very surprised far rid came out who you know i love and said in 2013, the iranians would either capitulate or they would be -- >> rose: in a column he wrote that. >> yeah, and 2013, i think that
12:50pm
neither of those are likely, it is very hard for the iranians to capitulate and even if they did for us to believe them. >> rose: what is happening is people tell me, there is a real debate about advocacy of the nuclear program within and i am told, or at least it has been written that it was that the at the instigation of the ayatollah. >> i think that is right. >> rose: people are saying, you know, what is in the best interests of iran here? >> there are ministers that have come out and said, though they have been chastised look our oil production is off 40 percent because of these sanctions what are we getting from it? there is an internal debate but they have to get a deal done, they have to get something for the deal so they don't be seen as capitulating and it has to be seen as credible by the united states and the international community, that is a very hard lift. >> rose:. >> i don't think that happens but i also don't think we blow them up. >> rose: but do you believe that if there is a judgment that they are about to acquire nuclear weapons or the capability to make nuclear weapons that either israel or
12:51pm
the united states would strike? >> i think that is a more reasonable likelihood, but i don't think we hit that point in 2013. i still don't think it is a given. >> rose: they will have the -- i mean they will have the iranian -- they don't have the delivery or they don't have -- what is the guy adami i think they don't have? >> they haven't weaponized and haven't had the capacity to weaponize and haven't enriched to a stuff degree that takes time and there is a awareness of where they are in the process. we have been slowing them, the risk around iran not is we will blow them up but that is there is a shadow war going on, remember that debate with romney and obama, romney said that because of obama, the iranians are four years closer to nuclear weapon, that is hogwash, you think about what we have done zero to iranians regime, israelis and others to slow them down, not just the sanctions but the cyber attacks and shadow war, cheery we are slowing them and that matters and that also has the potential for the iranians to do something back. >> rose: number 9 is india. >> yes.
12:52pm
>> rose: what is wrong with india? >> india is -- they can't get out of their own way in terms of december sprattly kneed economic reform, tax implication, dealing with corruption, opening foreign direct investment ashes lot of indian entrepreneurs are increasingly looking where to invest outside of the country it is not blowing up but underperforming a, underperforming a. >> rose: the political system is not working. >> it is not working well. >> rose: and finally south africa. >> what a sad thing nell son mandela is hot doing well, one of the greatest men we have seen in the past century, 9 94 years old is not able to oversee improvement of his government, .. the turn -- >> rose: no political talent in south africa. > very little talent, you see the talent going away, the best who just left the party, by far, you and industry met him on many occasions and he is gone, he bolted, rama know/foe stow one of the wealthiest businessmen, number 2, he is pretty
12:53pm
incapable, it is really a turn toward the lowest the denominator of politics, and it is a hell of a lot of populism, south africa is not performing so you look at the brics and brazil is doing well, although the growth is well but russia, india, china, south africa, actually provide most of the significant political risk plus the middle east, that we look at in 2013, it is not the u.s. and europe and japan and that really is a page being turned from the financial crisis in the past four years. >> rose: so of all of these predictions which one are you least sure about? >> i am probably least sure about the china versus information point, precisely because it is one if there was -- china -- the leadership itself is very zer opaque, seven people at the top of that governing structure if they decided themselves, they just, you know, have a moment where they say, you know, we just need
12:54pm
to engage in a little bit of airing our dirty laundry because this is getting too dangerous, we have outside we have no way of assessing that, that would be a great thing, that would be a great thing and a great thing for u.s. china relations right now there is no indication they are prepared to do that. >> use area group, defining the top risks of 2013, thank you. >> charlie, always a pleasure. >> rose: good to see you. thanks for joining us, see you next time.
12:55pm
>> rose: funding for charlie rose has been provided by the coca-cola company, supporting this program since 2002. and american express. additional funding provided by these funders. and by bloomberg, a provider of multimedia news and information services worldwide. be more,
12:56pm
12:57pm
12:58pm
>> the following kqed production was produced in high definition. [ theme music plays ]
12:59pm
>> yes, "check, please!" people! >> it's all about licking your plate. >> the food is just fabulous. >> i should be in psychoanalysis for the amount of money i spend in restaurants. >> i had a horrible experience. >> i don't even think we were at the same restaurant. >> and everybody, i'm sure, saved room for those desserts. >> you bet.

Terms of Use (10 Mar 2001)